Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1995/06/13 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Tuesday, June 13, 1995 Council Chambers 6:06 p.m. Public Services Building CALL TO ORDER I. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers Alevy, Moot, Padilia (arrived at 6:22 p.m.), Rindone, and Mayor Hotton ALSO PRESENT: John D. Goss, City Manager; Bruce M. Boogaard, City Attorney; and Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, SILENT PRAYER 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 31, 1995 and June 3, 1995 MSC (Alevy/Rindone) to approve the minutes of May 31, 1995 and June 3, 1995 as presented. Approved 4-0- I with Padilia absent. 4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: a. Oath of Oftlce: Robert Thomas - Planning Commission and James R. Robinson - Child Care Commission. The Oath of Office was administered to Robert Thomas and James R. Robinson by City Clerk Authelet. b. Presentation by Cody Winslow, Miss Chula Vista 1995. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items pulled: 12) BALANCE OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved 4-0-1 with Padilia absent. Cuuncilmember Mm~t abstained on Item 10. 5. WRITTEN COI~IMUN1CATIONS: a. Letter from the City Attorney stating that there were no observed repurtable action taken in Closed Session of 6/6/95. It is recommended that the letter be received and filed. b. Letter of resignation from the Board of Ethics Commission - Martha C. Villegas, 460 Smoky Circle, Chula Vista, CA 91910. It is recommended that the resignation be accepted with regret and the City Clerk be directed to post immediately according to the Maddy Act in the Clerk's office and the Public Library. c. Letter of resignation frnm the Veterans Advisory Commission - Joe A. Berlanga. It is recommended that the resignation be accepted with regret and the City Clerk be directed to post immediately according to the Maddy Act in the Clerk's oftice and the Public Library. 6. ORDINANCE 2630 AMENDING SECTION 2.28.110 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE BOARD OF ETHICS (second readin~ and adoorion) - The Board of Ethics is proposing a revision to the current Code of Ethics which is presented for Council's review. The purpose of the revision is to allow for an alternative appointment process should the Presiding Judge of the South Minutes June 13, 1995 Page 2 Bay Municipal Court Judicial District fail or decline to make an appointment. It is recommended that Council place the ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Board of Ethics) 7. RESOLUTION 17920 APPROVING SIXTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH REMY AND THOMAS FOR LITIGATION REPRESENTATION SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE CHAPARRAL GREENS LAWSUIT, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE SAME - After the Council and Board of Supervisors approved the Otay Ranch Project, Chaparral Greens sued on CEQA theories. The lower court trial is now complete and on April 19, 1995, Chaparral Greens filed a Notice of Appeal, appealing the lower court's denial of a writ of mandate. Ms. Thomas estimates $75,000 of additional expenses for the appeal. Baldwin concurs with the increase and is solely liable. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (City Attorney) 8. RESOLUTION 17921 APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING AGREEMENT WITH COTTON/BELAND/ASSOCIATES, INC. TO AUTHORIZE $24,950 IN ADDITIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES RELATING TO THE PREPARATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS FOR THE OTAY RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AREA ONE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT - An amendment to the original Three Party Agreement is necessary to cover an expanded scope of work that was not anticipated. The Otay Ranch Transportation Committee has recomxnended that the Environmental Impact Report include an additional 29 intersections. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Special Planning Projects Manager, Otay Ranch Prqiect) 9. RESOLUTION 17922 APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL OF ONE APPLICATION FOR SEVENTH CYCLE FUNDS OF THE STATE/LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (SLTPP) - Senate Bill 300 created the State/Local Transportation Partnership Program (STLPP) to identify and construct locally supported projects with a minimum of State planning and review in order to encourage local agencies to use funding sources other than Gas Tax fi.~r these projects. Staff has prepared one application for seventh cycle funding under this program. The application covers a Capital Improvement prqject along Main Street, between Industrial Boulevard and Broadway. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Councilmember Moot questioned where the money tbr the local share came from as it did not appear to be General Fund monies. John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, replied was non-gas tax and generally TransNet funds or assessment district funds. The State reimbursed the City the percentage out of the State's General Fund. 10. RESOLUTION 17923 AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO EXERCISE THE CITY'S RIGHT TO TAKE OVER AND UTILIZE A PORTION OF RANCHO DEL REY PARKWAY AND TERRA NOVA DRIVE - McMillin Development Company, in the process of developing the Rancho del Rey subdivision, has built portions of Rancho del Rey Parkway and Terra Nova Drive that serve individual subdivision units within the overall development that are "backbone" streets and essential to serve those individual tracts. Because the subject streets were constructed and bonded as part of the individual tracts, they ordinarily will not be accepted by the City until the work on the entire subdivision is complete. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Councilmember Moot stated his law firm represented McMillin Development Company and he would abstain participation. 11. RESOLUTION 17924 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT TO LEKOS ELECTRIC, INC. FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATION AT PASEO LADERA AND TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR - On May 24, 1995, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids from seven (7) electrical contractors for the installation of traffic signals at Paseo Ladera Minutes June 13, 1995 Page 3 and Telegraph Canyon Road. The low bid of $63,200 was received from Lekos Electric, Inc. The low bid is below the Engineer's estimate of $77,465.00. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 4/5th's vote required 12. REPORT REQUEST BY THE BONITA HORSEMEN ASSOCIATION TO UTILIZE THE JOGGING/PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AT SWEETWATER RlVER- Staff recommends Council approve a new equestrian trail alignment along the outside of the new jogging/bicycle path and allow use of the bridge for crossing the Sweetwater River only when the river cannot be crossed. (Director of Parks and Recreation) Pulled from the Consent Calendar. · Dwayne N. Severn, 2957 Pettigo Drive, San Diego, CA~ representing the Bonita Valley Horsemen, stated they had been dealing with the area around the Willow Street bridge for several years. They had negotiated with the City and planners and thought they had access to the bridge as a riding, biking, pedestrian trail up until a couple of weeks ago when they were told they could not have their horses on the bridge. They had been riding in the valley for 50 years and he felt they should be allowed to use the bridge when they had no other alternatives to cross the river. Councilmember Alevy questioned if there was a park ranger available to enfi>rce any restriction. Jess Valenzuela, Director of Parks & Recreation, stated the Department eliminated a full-time ranger position in the 1994/95 budget but added additional part-time hours. The ranger would do some of the enlBrcement but they would coordinate with the Police Department. Councilmember Alevy referred to the issue of cleaning up after the horses and questioned if the Association would help to police the bridge in order to help keep it clean during the periods of use by horses. Mr. Severn stated some of their members would stop to clean up after their horses, others would not. Jerry Foncerada, Deputy Director of Parks, stated they were working with the Association to work out an arrangement for them to take some responsibility for the usage of the bridge. The maintenance staff would also monitor the bridge during those times. MSUC (Alevy/Horton) to accept the report. * * END OF CONSENT CALENDAR * * PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 13. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER TESTIMONY ON THE FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 LEVY OF ASSESSMENT FOR CITY OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. 1 - Based upon the advise of the City Attorney, EastLake Maintenance District No. 1 and Open Space District 1 and 10 have been separated due to conflict of interest concerns. One Council member owns property subject to the proposed assessment in this district. Staff will meet with property owners on June 8 and June 13, 1995 to discuss any concerns and to answer any questions. Staff recommends Council to open the hearing, take testimony and close the hearing. (Director of Public Works) Councilmember Alevy stated his residence was in Open Space District No. 1 and he would abstain from participation. John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, reviewed the three costs to consider: 1) assessment - the amount the property owners were notified of and the higher amount that set the limit on what would be charged, based on the public hearing; 2) collection - the amount that would be collected on the assessments, and in most cases it was less than the assessment; and 3) cost of maintenance of the district - total cost divided by the total number of properties in the district, in most cases the collection amount was less than the cost. The proposed assessment for Open Space District No. 1 was $81.00 and which was up from $77.00. It was based on the cost per EDU, but in effect the City would only be collecting $53.00 due to reserves. etc. Minutes June 13, 1995 Page 4 This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. There being no public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. Councilmember Rindone stated the second public hearing was set for July 11, 1995 which was a date that had been discussed as a dark meeting due to the meeting being held on June 27, 1995. Mr. Boogaard stated both hearings had been published and property owners notified with a single notice for both meetings. Donna Snider, Civil Engineer, stated the property owners had been noticed of the July 11, 1995 meeting and it was also a requirement that they receive 45 days notice. MSC (Horton/Moot) to continue the public hearing to July 11, 1995. Approved 4-0-0-1 with Alevy abstaining. 14. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER TESTIMONY ON THE FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 LEVY OF ASSESSMENT FOR CITY OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. 10 - Based upon the advise of the City Attorney, EastLake Maintenance District No. 1 and Open Space District 1 and 10 have been separated due to conflict of interest concerns. One Council member owns property subject to the proposed assessment in this district. Staff will meet with property owners on June 8 and June 13, 1995 to discuss any concerns and to answer any questions. Staff recommends Council to open the hearing, take testimony and close the hearing. (Director of Public Works) Councilmember Moot stated his residence was in Open Space District No. 10 and he would abstain from participation. This being the time and place as advertised. the public hearing was declared open. ® Nelson Farwell, 1104 Winding Oak Drive, Chola Vista, CA, stated their 1994 assessment was $26.00, the present year it went up 80-85% to $42.00, and the proposed assessment would go up to $83.00 which was a 99% increase. He did not feel that such a large increase was fair when they would not be receiving additional service. The open area behind his home had not been maintained. He/~lt it was a way around Proposition 13. It had to be stopped somewhere. John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, stated every assessment district had its own fund and all monies collected for that district went into that fund and it could not be spent on anything else. Over the years a reserve was built up to pay the tax. In 1993/94 the assessment was only $25.00 but the cost for the EDU was $84.00 and the cost for the current fiscal year was $88.00. Staff was setting the assessment at the upper limit, i.e. $83.00 but would only collect $71.00 which was based on the amount of savings. There was no way to correct it other than not giving the property owners the savings. There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. MSC (Horton/Rindone) to continue the public hearing to the meeting of July 11, 1995. Approved 4-0-0-1 with Moot abstaining. 15. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER TESTIMONY ON THE FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 LEVY OF ASSESSMENT FOR EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTR1CT NO. 1 - Based upon the advise of the City Attorney, EastLake Maintenance District No. 1 and Open Space District 1 and 10 have been separated due to conflict of interest concerns. One Council member owns property subject to the proposed assessment in this district. Staff will meet with property owners on June 8 and June 13, 1995 to discuss any concerns and to answer any questions. Staff recoramends Council to open the hearing, take testimony and close the hearing. (Director of Public Works) Councilmember Padilia stated his residence was in EastLake Maintenance District No. 1 and he would abstain from participation. Minutes June 13, 1995 Page 5 Jolm Lippitt, Director of Public Works, stated the assessments were very low fbr EastLake Greens Maintenance District No. 1 because they had a homeowners association that maintained most of their landscaping. The assessment was primarily for the medians. EastLake Greens also had a homeowners association but they were in the Telegraph Canyon Drainage area and, therefore, paid a little more. The more typical assessment was the Salt Creek I area which did not have a homeowners association. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. There being no public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. MSC (Alevy/Horton) to continue the public hearing to July 11, 1995. Approved 4-0-1 with Padilia abstaining. 16. PUBLIC HEAR1NG TO CONSIDER TESTIMONY ON THE FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS FOR C1TY OPEN SPACE DISTRICTS 2-9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 31, BAY BOULEVARD, AND TOWN CENTER AND TO ESTABLISH ZONE 9 WITHIN OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO. 20 - The City administers 23 open space districts established over the last twenty-tire years. As part of this process, a levy of an annual assessment is necessary to enable the City to collect li~nds for the proposed open space maintenance. Staff' will meet with property owners on June 8 and June 13, 1995, to discuss any concerns and to answer any questions. A second public hearing is scheduled tot Jnly l 1, 1995. In a letter dated October 17, 1994, Sweetwater Authority requested they be exempted fi'om the yearly open space assessment for a lot they own in Open Space District No. 14. Last, a zone needs to be established within Open Space District No. 20 (Rancho del Rey) to pay for that development's share of maintenance of Telegraph Canyon Channel. Staff reconunends Council open the hearing, take testimony, close the hearing, deny Sweetwater Authority's request for exemption from the open space district charges until they develop the site for their water facility, and delay action on the modified Engineer's Report until July 11, 1995. (Director of Public Works) John Lippitt, Director of Public Works, stated in ahnost every case the assessment amount was the higher number and the collectable was less. The most con~plicated district was Rancho Del Rey where there were several zones. Zone 5 was the largest amount. Zone 6 and Zone 7 were jnst beginning to develop and did not have assessments for 1994/95. Councilmember Rindone questioned what remedy was available if the assessment was way off. Donna Snider, Civil Engineer, stated additional public hearings would be held proposing an increase. Clifford Swanson, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer, stated it was done on estimating the costs of the district when it was built out and number of units when built out. It was not set at build out and ten years. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. There being no public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. MSUC (Rindone/Horton) to continue the public hearing to July 11, 1995. 17. ORDINANCE 2631 ADDING SECTION 17.07.035 TO THE MIINICIPAL CODE RELATING TO LANDSCAPING ACT PROVIDERS (secund readinl~ and adoption) - As a Charter City, Council has adopted a procedural ordinance for administration and maintenance of open space districts which includes procedures tbr setting assessments, as contained within Chapter 17.07 of the Municipal Code. Property owners within open space districts are assessed annually via the property tax rolls for upkeep of these districts. The assessments are based on the annual district budgets plus reserves, which can fluctuate significantly from year to year because of budget savings, excess reserves or unanticipated costs. Assessments can thus go up or down each year because of these fluctuations, which has been a concern of the property owners and staff. The inflation factor proposed will not take effect this year, but staff is proposing a collectable which is different from the assessment as provided for in this ordinance. This item does not require a Public Hearinl~ but is a related item. Staff recommends Council place ordinance on second reading and adoption. (Director of Public Works) Minutes June 13, 1995 Page 6 Clifford Swanson, Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer, stated the ordinance was noticed with the notices for the assessment district stating the pnblic would have an opportunity to address the issue at a public hearing. Staff received two protests and Council could take that testimony at the public hearing. This being the time and place as advertised the public hearing was declared open. There being no public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. Councilmember Rindone ret~rred to the San Diego Metropolitan Area All Urban Consumer Price Index and questioned how staff arrived at using that CPI. Mr. Boogaard stated the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, published the change in the CPI throughout the nation twice a year. It was a federally published document and would be available through the Finance Department. ORDINANCE 2631 PLACED ON SECOND READING AND ADOPTION, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. 18. PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM (MSCP) PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIR/EIS) - The City of San Diego has released a drafi MSCP Plan and EIR/EIS for public review and comment. Staff recommends that the Council direct staff to tBrward comments to the City of San Diego regarding the draft Plan and EIR/EIS. (Director of Planning) Robert Leiter, Director of Planning, handed out a memo with additional letters of conunent received after the Council packets were distributed. Due to the number of comments received staff was recormmending that Council open the public hearing, accept any additional poblic testimony, and continue the public hearing to June 20, 1995. Staff would then provide a written assessment of the comments received. Final action could be taken at that time. This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. ® Jim Whalen, 4517 Santa Monica Avenue, San Diego, CA, representing Alliance for Habitat Conservation, stated they were the large land owners organization that had been active in the MSCP process. They represented about 80,000 acres of land. He f~lt they were moving toward general support. The landowners were only involved due to the assurances they were given that they would be able to proceed with their projects when the process was completed. He felt the bottom line should be an insurance policy that stated if certain things were done and the general plan was developed in a certain way they would not have to worry about the endangered species listings such as the Gnatcatcher. The tbllowing were open issues: 1) changes that were going to be made in the draft plan, they wanted to see those changes before the drat~: went forward tbr Council approval; 2) mitigation standards, they had heard of standards anywhere from 3:1 to 5: I for certain development types and those were totally unacceptable, they had drafted standards and he recommended those to Council; 3) small property owners, they were aware that the program would not succeed without dealing with the small property owners, staff could try to draw them out of the preserve as much as possible; 5) changes to the General Plan without funding mechanisms being set up; 5) buffers, how preserve areas would be separated t~om development areas, they had not reached closure on the item and until they did they could not support that aspect of the program; and 6) maintenance, monitoring, and operation money. By their participating they wanted to make it clear that they did not intend to be involved in the long term upkeep of land they could not develop. ® Jim Algert, 428 Broadway, Chula Vista, CA, Civil Engineer, representing J. H. Algert and Bill Scott, stated they owned small properties adjacent to the southerly portion of San Miguel Ranch and had been designated in the MSCP as 100% open space. They were adjacent to SDG&E on one side and the Ranch on the other side and he did not believe they would be viable habitat. He wanted the opportunity to discuss the properties with staff to see if something else could be worked out. Mr. Leiter stated staffs overall approach to soch requests dealing with small property ownership not in an existing master planned conmmnity was to either delete it if it could be confirmed that there was no habitat on the property or place it as a special study area which would take off the percentage preserve area designation and indicate that Minutes June 13, 1995 Page 7 through the subarea planning process staff would do further evaluation to determine whether there was any habitat on the site. Councilmember Alevy stated Council had received a letter from SDG&E referring to their Miguel Substation and questioned if it was adjacent to Mr. Algert's land. Mr. AIgert stated it was adjacent on the north side. The property involved was two live acre parcels. · H. Ernest Schnepf, 3672 Valley Vista Road, Bonita, CA, spoke on behalf of the property on the park land across from the golf driving range in Bonita. The study had taken halves or parts of other parcels and designated them as wildlife habitat. The area was horse country and his parcel was approximately 2/3rd's grass and mowed and they did not want it changed. They did not want to be involved. The smaller properties were the ones that would really get hurt because it restricted the use of their property and they would not get compensation lbr it. He felt all of the property owners on the north side of the park, included in the area, would like to be excluded. The river bed was once all farmland and changed with the flooding in the 80's, then the brush started growing and no one did anything to stop it. · AI Gerhardt, 825 Lori Lane. Chula Vista, CA, private property owner, not present when called to the dais. · Cindy Burrascano. 771 Lori Lane, Chula Vista, CA, Chair, Chula Vista Resource Conservation Commission, stated they had reviewed the MSCP Plan and EIR and had some very strong feelings. The plan was originally developed to prevent having to go throogh the Endangered Species Act on each development. Originally there were three MSCP Target Species that were chosen as umbrella species '~Br Coastal Sage Scrub and she pointed out that only two of the species were covered by the preserve design. The RCC was not certain that the species should be covered due to the lack of data on one and on the other there were inadequate preservation levels for the Gnatcatcher. The other target species was not a covered species, which meant that it would still have to go to a review for each project. The RCC supported the City's position to negotiate with Fish & Wildlife and Fish & Game to resolve some of the outstanding problems with the preserve. The Commission would like to have as many covered species as possible. There was a large list of those considered "high risk" that were considered covered and a large list of species that were not covered that they would like, by slight variations in the General Plan amendments, to include in the preserve area. · Michael F. Coleman, 2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard, Spring Valley, CA, representing the Otay Water District, Environmental Specialist, stated they had issued a letter to the City of San Diego with their comments on the MSCP. · Kim Kilkenny, 11975 El Carmno Real, San Diego, CA, representing The Baldwin Company, stated they generally supported the staff recommendation relative to the MSCP. They had be~n in discussions with the resource agencies regarding the Otay Ranch and he t~lt they had been disappointing. They stood ready to proceed through the implementation process of the MSCP program should it survive and prepare with the City a subregional plan for the City of Chula Vista and Otay Ranch. In their opinion, the MSCP program had to be a viable program that worked well for the property owners, agencies, and the constituents. He wanted to assure Council that relative to the Otay Ranch plan the quasi-public site within the Otay River Valley corrently designated for a future water reclamation program would be preserved, Proctor Valley was an important regional access route which went through City of San Diego land and he hoped that the MSCP relative to Chula Vista and City of San Diego ownership land had allowances to make sure that the road could be constructed. if not, there would be no access between Chula Vista and East County. Councilmember Moot stated he was concerned with the notion that if there was a new listed species that the City would have to start all over again and that there would be no guarantee that the City would have the permitting authority over a new species. He questioned how that would affect the preserve design for Otay Ranch. Mr. Kilkenny stated that one of the things that had to come out of the MSCP process if it was to have any value at all was assurances from the State and Federal agencies that there would not be any changes. That was the value of planning and the reason the major land holders participated in the planning. Minutes June 13, 1995 Page 8 Mr. Boogaard questioned if the state of assurances currently offered by Fish & Wildlife was satisfactory to the development community. Mr. Whalen stated it was getting there. The first draft was not even close, but after reviewing the main issues he felt it would be fine although they had not seen the next draft. The one remaining area was the third party beneficiaries. The agreement itself was moving along well. ® Katy Wright, 900 Lane Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, representing EastLake Development Company, stated they supported the staff position to continue to review the mapping. Because it was done at such a macro-level they had found numerous errors on their property. They did not have Coastal Sage Scrub on their property as it had been dry farmed for seven years. The area of concern they had was the property immediately adjacent to upper and lower Otay Reservoir which were currently zoned residential, open space, and commercial. She then referred to a transparency and stated that area had been zoned by the City and they had a development agreement on the property. At the present time it was not totally clear whether that area was included. If changed to the 90% preserve boundary it would preclude the Council from approving such uses as currently allowed under the present zoning. While that may be necessary in some cases they i%11 the designation of the 90% preserve on that area was arbitrary and incorrect. They had two EIR's and a field observation as recent as last month that substantiated the low habitat value of the property and that it was not appropriate tier inclusion in the preserve. She recommended that Council direct staff to exclude the area from the MSCP designation. · Dr. Tim Wilson, 13039 Brixton Place, San Diego, CA. representing Watson McCut Ltd., stated he was generally in support of the staff recommendations tbr the MSCP. He reqnested that Council: 1) be careful in how they dealt with the small property owners: 2) address the buffer zones; and 3) how it would be financed, i.e. if property was within the MSCP how the property owners would be compensated. There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. Mr. Leiter stated the issue regarding the clarification of the multiple habitat planning area boundaries had been an ongoing process since the draft plan had been released. Staff continued to meet with property owners to make corrections. The subarea planning process would also be another area to make those corrections if sections were missed. That was why staff was asking ti>r additional time. Mayor Horton questioned if the buffer issue had been resolved. Mr. Leiter responded that it had not been resolved. At the MSCP Policy Committee that issue had been deferred tbr one month and would be brought back in July. Staff had also indicated that they were not comfortable with what was in the Draft MSCP Plan. Staff t~lt it should be resolved on a case-by-case basis. Councilmember Alevy felt if approval had been granted to property owners or developers deference should be paid to those plans. He was also concerned regarding the SDG&E substation being included in the plan. He did not feel the mapping was done correctly. Councilmember Rindone stated some of the properties in the eastem area appeared land locked. Mr. Leiter stated if a property was land locked the City would have to look at density transfers or other ways of giving them compensation for the property and they would be made part of a permanent preserve. That would be looked at in the subarea planning process. If not, there was a serious concern regarding the taking of property if it was designated as a 90% or 100% preserve and there was no use of that property. Councilmember Rindone stated that was not addressed to Council's satisfaction in the report and he felt it was a serious consideration. He requested a full verbal and written report on the issue, even by parcel if necessary. MSUC (Rindone/Padilla) to continue for one week as requested by staff for an update to Council. 19. PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 19.04.022 AND 19.36.030 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW MINOR AUTOMOBILE MAINTENANCE AND Minutes June 13, 1995 Page 9 REPAIR AS A CONDITIONAL USE 1N THE C-C CENTRAL COMMERCIAL ZONE - This is a proposal to amend the Municipal Code to allow minor automobile maintenance facilities by conditional use permit in the C-C Central Commercial zone. The request has been submitted by Econo Lube 'n' Tune, Inc. in conjunction with a conditional use permit request to establish an automobile maintenance facility at the southwester comer of 30th Street and Edgemere Avenue. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on first reading. (Director of Planning) ORDINANCE 2633 AMENDING SECTION 19.04.022 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW MINOR AUTOMOBILE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR FACILITIES AS A CONDITIONAL USE 1N THE C-C CENTRAL COMMERCIAL ZONE (first readine) This being the time and place as advertised, the public hearing was declared open. · Frank Smith, 2928 North Avenue, National City, CA, stated the property adjoined the Food For Less property and his home was across the street from the Food For Less loading docks. He requested that Council deny the request due to the noise impacts seven days a week, i.e. revving of engines, bay doors opening and closing, impact wrenches, etc. · Marilyn Ponseggi, 2117 Jarama Court, El Cajon, CA, representing Econo Lube 'n' Tune, stated they were in agreement with the staff recommendation and that the code should be amended. The use was fairly new and came about because service stations no longer provided those types of uses. The conditional use permit was not on the agenda. When the Planning Commission approved the request they included in their approval that there be noise studies done and they had agreed to any noise mitigation the study called for if the use generated any noise that would be heard across 30th Street beyond the noise from 30th Street and the f~eeway. · A.J. Hlawatsch, 1239 East 30th Street, National City, CA, stated he was opposed to such a facility in a residential area. He requested that Council deny the request. There being no further public testimony, the public hearing was declared closed. Councilmember Moot stated the item should be heard by National City not Chula Vista. There should be discussion in the future regarding city boundaries. Mayor Horton stated she agreed and she would be working on that issue within the next 12 months. Former Mayor Cox had tried but had been unsuccessful. Mr. Goss stated there was a misimpression that if the boundaries were straightened there would be an economic disadvantage to National City. Those issues could be worked out in a tax sharing agreement so the economic impact on both agencies would be neutral on both agencies. Councilmember Alevy stated from looking at the plan, efforts had been made by the Econo Lube 'n' Tune people to put in landscaping and angle the building to help mitigate noise. Ms. Ponsiggi replied that an extensive landscaping plan had been prepared tier the facility. Extensive changes had also been made to the plans which had been approved by the Design Review Committee. ORDINANCE 2633 PLACE ON FIRST READING BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved unanimously. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS · John Willett, 97 Montebello Street, Chula Vista, CA, representing the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, thanked Council tBr their participation in the opening cerelnonies of the Olympic Training Center. The Chamber fumished 48 volunteers throughout the week. Minutes June 13, 1995 Page 10 · Rod Davis, 233 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista. CA, Executive Director~ Chuta Vista Chamber of Commerce, announced that the U. S. Postal Service would open a hcility in Chula Vista in September which would employ 699 people at $9.74/hour. They would be occupying a building that had been vacant for over six years. Mr. Davis also announced that San Diego Harbor Excursions would begin harbor cruises on 6/24/95 on Saturdays. Excursions would leave at 11:00 a.m., 1:30 p.m., and 4:00 p.m. BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS None submitted. ACTION ITEMS 20. RESOLUTION 17925 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT AMONG THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, LUTHERAN CHURCH OF JOY, AND RANCHO DEL REY INVESTORS FOR A PARK AND RIDE FACILITY - The Lutheran Church of Joy has been processing a building permit for a new church at the intersection of East H Street and Buena Vista Way. They are obligated to pay a Transportation DIF fee for the development of the site. McMillin Development Company (developer of Rancho del Rey) has a requirement for a park and ride facility of 50 spaces, or to participate in an overall program to provide park and ride facilities in the eastern area. The Church of Joy, McMillin and Caltrans have come to agreement for constructing and operating a park and ride facility on the Church of Joy's property. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Councilmember Moot stated his law firm represented McMillin Development Company and he would abstain from participation dne to a conflict of interest. Mr. Boogaard stated there were minor changes in the agreement. The proposal that required the church to commence the design and constructkin was to cormhence 270 days alter the building permit, but not later than 7/1/96. They would build a 50 space fully lighted park and ride facility consistent with the City and Caltrans standards. They were obligated to operate, maintain, and repair the facility for 20 years as a park and ride facility. They were required to construct the hcility and enter into an agreement with Caltrans to maintain it. Upon that agreement, in a fbrm satisfactory tn the City, the City would agroe to release them from the requirements of Condition 56. Councilmember Rindone questioned if the Church of Joy was responsible tbr the maintenance of the park and ride facility for twenty years. Mr. Boogaard responded that was correct, Caltrans was assuming that obligation for the Church of Joy as a private matter between the two of the them. Failure would result in the City's right to reassess the DIF charge against the Church of Joy. The contract recognized that the Church had a present duty to pay $105,000. RESOLUTION 17925 OFFERED BY COUNCILMEMBER RINDONE, reading of the text was waived, passed and approved 4-0-0-1 with Moot abstaining. Mr. Boogaard stated the resolution did not include the satisfaction of the City with the proposed agreement and requested authorization lBr the City Manager to approve the ti~rm of the Caltrans agreement, if it substantially complied to the agreement previously submitted. MINUTE ACTION: MSC (Horton/Alevy) to grant the City Manager the authorization to approve the form of the Caltrans agreement if it cumplied to the agreement previously submitted to the City Attorney. Approved 4-0-0-1 with Moot abstaining. 21. RESOLUTION 17918 APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 1995-1999 CONSOLIDATED PLAN INCLUDING BOTH THE FISCAL YEAR 1995-1996 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT Minutes June 13, 1995 Page 11 (CDBG) AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP (HOME) PROGRAM BUDGETS AND AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF FISCAL YEAR 1995-1999 CONSOLIDATED PLAN TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) - Council held a public hearing on 5/16/95 to review and receive public comment on the draft fiscal year 1995-1999 Consolidated Plan and to review all projects and programs being considered for CDBG and Home funding. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Community Development) Continued from the meeting of 6/06/95. Councilmember Rindone stated he would abstain from participation in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest due to the CDBG funding request by the Sweetwater Valley Union High School District. Mr. Goss stated the overall budget process presented a number of major issues to the Council. One of the issues was the proposal to match the local match tbr the COPS Grant for fuur additional oflicers from CDBG funds. At the first public hearing Council endorsed the usage of CDBG funds t~r the COPS Grant match. At the second public hearing Council had asked if there were other parts of the block grant that could be used for human services agencies. Clearly there was a specific limit of 15 % of the total amount. During the regular budget hearing Council expressed concerns with some of the alternatives proposed for balancing the budget. Supplemental Memo 18 listed options which included the utilization of more of the federal grant fbr COPS the first year and less the second and third year with a corresponding amount of block grant support that could occur in years two and three. Questions were raised as to whether there was a need to have a declining amount of the federal COPS Grant money each of the three years. He had been tinder the impression and responded that it was a fiat amount, i.e. $25,000 per officer per year for years one, two, and three and that if block grant monies were used in years two and three there could be a comparable set amount. However, after research there had to be a declining amount although the amount of that decline varied depending on what the jurisdiction proposed. Staff had indicated that the maximum that would actually work was slightly over $100,000 in terms of grant support. Based on the information regarding the declining amount that was required, the amount of funding from CDBG funds, if used in years two and three could actually go up to the detriment to the social service agencies. If there was less block grant monies available from the federal government then the impact would be even more significant. Chris Salomone, Director of Community Development, stated the City had permission from HUD to extend the meeting to 6/13/95 and staff felt a decision had to be made or it could result in a similar delay in the City being able to draw down the funds. Those speaking on behalf of the South Bay Family YMCA Youth Action Program, Pryde were: · Jajaira Flores, 1590 Cumbre View, Bonita, CA, representing Bonita Vista Pryde, spoke in support of the program. · Frank Ruiz, 819 Avlon Avenue, Chula Vista, CA · Steven Picanza, 4629 Villas Drive, Bonita, CA · Marie Picanza, 4629 Villas Drive, Bonita, CA · Chris Castillo, 898 Myron Avenue, Chula Vista, CA · Ray Smith, Chula Vista, CA · Hugo Salazar, 203C Otay Valley Road, Chnla Vista, CA · Raymond Fellers, 3101 Fourth Avenue, San Diego, CA, representing Lutheran Social Services, stated he was not anti-law and order, public safety, or community safety. Prevention was a balanced approach in conjunction with law entbrcement. There was a steady dwindling of federal monies and it made all the agencies more competitive for those funds. He requested that Council not only look at law entbrcement, but at providing services that would prevent a lot of the problems. · Sandra Simon, 3707 Third Avenue, San Diego, CA, representing George G. Glenner Alzheimer's Family Centers, Inc., stated they understood the City's commitment fur funding officers and thanked the Council for recognizing their agency. If Council accepted the staff reconunendation their allocation of funds would provide 130 days of respite tbr families that could not affurd daycare. · Margaret Helton, 162 Mankato Street, Chtfla Vista. CA, stated she was not speaking to any specific program but to the titct that the funding had been committed to social services for over twenty years. She hated to see the City withdrawing support for those services. She was concerned that Chula Vista Connection had been recommended for funding because ever since they had started they were denied funding by both the commissions and staff because they were a duplicative service. She hoped the funding tbr the COPS Grant could come from other areas than social services. [] I Minutes June 13, 1995 Page 12 · Tina Williams, 50 Fourth Avenue~ Chula Vista, CA, representing South Bay Family YMCA, and Kathy Lembo, 315 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA, representing South Bay Community Services, stated Council had an option regarding the COPS Grant and that the full $100,000 funding was not needed. They recommended on behalf of all the social service/human service agencies that Council fund the COPS Prograln between $40,000 and $60,000 and restore the balance to human service funding and look at the process to request and allocate block grant funding to the agencies so they could better prepare f~r anticipated cuts in the future. Their goal was to preserve as many services for the residents of the community as possible. · Jim Richards, 2437 Marina Boulevard, San Diego, CA, Senior Adult Services, Meals-On-Wheels, stated they served over 300 people in the City of Chula Vista. They would appreciate the $12,000 they requested and the committee recommended. They were happy to get whatever they could get and the City Manager's proposal was better than the reduction proposed by staff. Mr. Goss stated several of the Community Pryde prugrams were covered under block grant funding but there were other Pryde programs that were covered in the general budget and in the Parks & Recreation program. Ms. Williams stated the Pryde Program was part of the Youth Action program which was started one and one-half years ago. The original program did not include Chula Vista Junior or Chula Vista High School. Therefore, block grant monies were requested to fund the programs at those two schools. Those at the meeting speaking on behalf of the Pryde Program were not speaking on behalf of one program or another but of the program in general. The allocation recommended was not enough to run two sites with one year of programming. They were also unaware of the status of the funding allocated in the Parks & Recreation budget. Councilmember Padilia stated he had a copy of the COPS Ahead Program and the City's application signed by the City Manager and dated 2/20/95. [n the application one of the things the City was required to do was provide the budget plan on how the City's match would be allocated and how that would determine the amount of money requested lbr each year of the term of the program fi~r federal assistance. He had serious problems with the recommendation from staff. In light of the guidelines of the grant which indicated that the federal percentage should decrease over the term of the grant and that the City had fixed the target of tbur officers at $25,000/officer over the term, the application showed the fbllowing breakdown: year one - federal percentage of 80% and City match of 20% - $37,409; year two - 50/50 percent split; and year three - federal percentage at 20% and City match at 80%. In light of the fact that there may be less grant monies available in future years, that the City did not need to cornnut the amount of money Council was being asked to commit from CDBG funds for the match in year one, and that the City could reassess finances in year two and three to provide the City match, he was curious why the Manager recommended the allocation of $100,000 from CDBG monies to provide the City match when the application only required $37,409. Mr. Goss stated the application was done in February which was only a few weeks after the City had been notified that they would qualif~ fbr fi~ur additional officers under the COPS Program. At that time he was given the application and did not review it, except tier the cover page, because he had been assured that it was just a process to begin the process of getting the money. The impacts were not discussed of the dollar amounts because they realized the local match would have to be reviewed during the budget process, i.e. Police Department budget. In terms of the overall operating budget that did not occur until April. Subsequent to that, and before the April meeting, it came to his attention that another city had used their entire 15% to support their Crime Bill COPS. At that time he was under the misimpression that it was an equal amount, i.e. if it was $25,000 per officer for each of the three years, and another $30,000 was needed to support that from the local match, it would require $120,000 for the first year. He had been informed only that morning that because of the requirement in the application for a descending amount of federal money from the COPS Bill for each of the three years that the maximum the City could recommend for the local match was slightly above $100,000 which was being recommended to Council. When it was signed it was done with the understanding that it was not necessarily what the application would be, but that it would have to be adjusted during the budget review process. Councilmember Padilla stated it was a tight budget year and he did not know the budget projections over the next five year period. The City only needed to allocate an amount under $40,000 to qualify for the program for FY 1995/96. He had a problem with the philosophy applied and supported allocating funding as indicated in the application from CDBG funding. He felt it gave the City an opportunity to plan well in advance for the match in FY 1996/97 and 1997/98. That would free up almost $63,000 in CDBG funds for social services. Minutes June 13, 1995 Page 13 Councilmember Moot questioned the total amount of matching funds that the City would need to commit over the three year period for the COPS Grant. Rick Emerson, Chief of Police, stated they had projected $330,557 as the local match over the lifi~ of the grant and that the City would receive $300,000 from the federal government. Councilmember Moot stated the options available to the Council were how to divide that $330,000 over the three year period. It appeared that the amount of funding for social services under CDBG last year was $271,800, the original recommendation had been modified to take out of the funding $120,000, and had been modified again to take out $100,000. He had a tendency to agree with Councilmember Padilia in concept on the issue. Fundamental fairness was the goal the Council should be trying to achieve as the programs were extremely important to the conununity. Council had to look at those programs in the overall context of the City and every department, except for maybe one, would be taking a reduction anywhere from 10-20%. He would look at trying to fund the CDBG level for FY 1995/96 at levels proportional to the reductions by the departments. To ask them to do more than their fair share was putting them at an unnecessary disadvantage and inhibited and potentially jeopardized some of the programs. If the recommended $100,000 was not taken from the social services it would give the agencies time to plan for further reductions over the next 2-3 years. Mr. Goss stated some departments were taking larger cuts but the average was between 5-10%. Mayor Horton questioned the average f~,r the last five years of funding for CDBG social services. Mr. Goss stated the current funding was $271,000, 1993/94 - $250,000, 1992/93 - $227,000, and in the two prior years it was approximately $175,000. It averaged out to $219,400. Councilmember Alevy stated it was a difficult decision. The City had been given a mandate by the community which stated that police and fire protection were the highest priority. The City also had many important social programs and he felt there needed to be a happy medium. He ,.vanted to see funding lk, r the social services and then ask them over the next year to work with the City to build a budget tier thu next two years that would allow more money for the COPS Program. Mayor Horton agreed with Councihnember Moot. It was important to recognize that if the funding was cut back for the COPS Program that next year the balance would increase and the potential for the amount of funding for the social services would be even less than anticipated Ii~r the present year. She questioned what a 14% reduction would be from the FY 1994/95 funding. Mr. Goss replied that it would be $38,052. MOTION: {Horton) readjust the amount for the COPS Program for FY 1995/96 to $90,000; the $12,000 recommended for Chula Vista Connection be contingent upon partnering or merging with another social service agency within the community - if an agreement was nnt consummated within 45 days the $12,000 would be reallncated to all other youth serving programs; the balance frnrn the nriginal $120,000 for the COPS Program be allocated to the youth serving programs in the cnmmunity and Meals-On-Wheels. Mayor Horton stated she attended a Port Commission meeting to request funding for special event programs in the City and was shocked when funding tier some of those programs was cut 50 %. It was happening not only in Chula Vista but at the State and Federal level and those were problems that had to be dealt with. Government was not the answer to fund all the programs available. Chula Vista had been and would continue to be a leader in providing services for the young people. It was a difficult situation and if they cut back on the amount of money recommended for the COPS Program then next year the amount for the social service groups would be even less and the monies available from the Federal Government may also be less. It was the time for the community to come together and lbr parents to get involved. She recommended Council go forward with the motion. SECOND TO MOTION: {Moot) Councilmember Moot stated when $120,000 was taken ti-om the available CDBG funds that left $204,000 lbr social services. He felt Chula Vista Connection had been given adequate time to make a partnership as requested of them Minutes June 13, 1995 Page 14 a long time ago. He felt that would be $12,000 that would go back into the programs. By adding the $30,000 from the COPS Program funding, the $12,000 fi'om the Chula Vista Connection, it wotdd amount to a 10% reduction. Councilmember Padilia stated he had some concern with the timeliness of some of the inti3rmation, i.e. that there was an option on the amount that the City had to match. He did not see a big difti~rence from asking to take $100,000 from the funding when it was not necessary or $90,000 and trying to distribute that over 20+ requests. He did not feel it necessarily had to be tied into a percentage of budget reductions City-wide. The $100,000 was not necessary for the proposed fiscal year and he refused to believe that it meant that in the succeeding fiscal years they would have to increase the CDBG allocation for the match. They could hold it at a constant level and work with the agencies regarding funding ideas and look deeper within the City's budget process to find the match. Looking at the fact that the application stated the City would provide a 20% match, under $40,000, and he was being asked to take $100,000 or $90,000 from social service funding, the impacts on those programs would come back to "bite" the City. He was willing to look at half of what the City Manager was recommending. He refused to believe that the Council could not find that match through some combination of cooperation of the community, private enterprise, and City government. Councilmember Moot appreciated Councilmember Padilla's comments, but he was trying to make it fair to everyone. If the City only took the $40,000 flz, r the COPS Program the social service agencies would be receiving a net increase while the rest of the City was taking a net decrease. he did not l~el that was fundamentally fair to ask some departments to take a decrease while increasing someone else. He was trying to bring into the process a disciplined approach where everyone did their fair share. Councilmember Alevy felt good government was the art of compromise. Council needed to make sure that the social programs, which were so vital to the community, had a chance to get used to the fact that they would have to live with less money for the next several years. Everyone shotaid make the same sacrifice. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO MOTION: (Alevy, agreed to by tire Maker and Second of the motion) to T""' add an additional $10,000 to the social services and reduci~tg the funding tiw the COPS Program from CDBG funding to $80,000. Councilmember Moot stated he coold support the substitute motion with the specific understanding that there would be a lot of hard work when the issue came back next year. He felt it should be started months before the budget process. Cutting social programs 5.5 % - i0 % had impacts that would not occur on other organizations. VOTE ON MOTION, AS AMENDED: approved 3-1-0-1 with Padilia opposed and Rindone abstaining. Councilmember Moot stated the City Attorney advised him to clarify that the Board he served on was not a non- profit organization and, therefi~re, he did not have a conflict of interest. RESOLUTION 17918 OFFERED MAYOR HORTON, reading of the text was waived. Mr. Boogaard stated the distribution sheet attached to the resolution would have to be amended. Mr. Salomone requested clarification if the motion required that the funds be distributed among the youth serving activities, Meals-On-Wheels, and Adult Protective Services. Mayor Horton stated the motion did not include Adult Protective Services because they had stated the amount of funds recommended was adequate. She felt the Meals-On-Wheels programs was very important for seniors and it needed to be included. Mr. Boogaard stated Chula Vista Connection was to receive $12,000 and the remaining $28,000 was to be distributed pro rata to the youth serving programs and Meals-On-Wheels. Mayor Horton stated Chula Vista Connection's funding was contingent upon their partnership with another organization with 45 days. VOTE ON MOT1ON: approved 3-1-0-1 with Padilia opposed and Rindone abstaining. Minutes June 13, 1995 Page 15 * * * Council recessed at 7:29 p.m. and reconvened at 7:40 p.m. * * * ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR items pulled: 12. The minutes will reflect the published agenda order. OTHER BUSINESS 22. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT(S) a. Schedulingof meetings. Mr. Goss stated Council would have a budget workshop on 6/14/95 in the Council Chambers at 6:00 p.m. to review the Community Promotions and Board/Commission budgets. Carry-over items would also be reviewed. He informed Council that if there was a meeting on 6/27/95 staff needed to hold a public hearing on the issue of solid waste rates. Because staff was proceeding expeditiously with Meet & Confer with the public safety organizations staff may need to discuss that issue. MSUC (Rindone/Horton) to hold a council meeting un 6/27/95 and cancel the Council meeting un 7/18/95. No Council meetings wnuld be held nn 7/4/95 und 7/18/95. 23. MAYOR'S REPORT(S) a. Ratification of Appointment: Stephen R. Arends - Veterans Advisory Conmussion MSUC (Horton/Moot) to ratify the appointment of Stephen R. Arends to the Veterans Advisory Commission. 24. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Padilia a. Councilmember Padilia stated one of the items that he l~It was procedurally important and valuable to the City was the review of performance, objectives, goals, and interaction with Council as a body of the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk. In the time that he had been on the Cuuncil they had not had an opportunity to sit as a new body and discuss those issues with any of the three appointed individuals. He felt that should be scheduled. He wanted to schedule the evaluation of the City Manager in Closed Session for next week. He had discussed it with the City Manager and advised him of the motion he would be making. He had also advised the City Manager that there were a number of specific items of concern that he wanted to discuss regarding the City Manager. He requested legal direction from the City Attorney as it was his understanding that because he had specific concerns it may require notice and consent from the City Manager to hear the items in Closed Session, otherwise they would have to be heard publicly. Mr. Boogaard stated the recent change to the Bruwn Act stated that a general evaluation could be done in Closed Session, but if there were specific complaints or concerns, written notice had to be given of the Council's intent to deliberate on those concerns in Ck>sed Session and seek consent to have the matters discussed in Closed Session. A written notice would have to be prepared giving notice 24 honrs prior to the meeting seeking consent and if it was not forthcoming it would have to be discussed publicly. Mayor Horton stated she had discussed staff review with Councilmember Rindone several months ago and had not put it on the schedule over the last several months due to the hectic schedule. She would also not recommend it for the next several weeks, but schedule them sometime during summer after the budget sessions. Minutes June 13, 1995 Page 16 MOTION: (Padilia) to calendar for the next Closed Session the City Manager's evaluation and to direct the City Attorney to prepare the appropriate and requisite notices. Motion died for lack of second. Councilmember Rindone a. Councilmember Rindone congratulated the Mayor and all officials regarding the opening ceremonies for the Olympic Training Center. Other than the Chartering of the City in 1911 he felt it was the finest day for the City of Chula Vista. b. Councilmember Rindone made a public announcement regarding the Ethics Training being sponsored by the Board of Ethics and the City which would be held on Saturday, June 17, 1995 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. AD,|OURNMENT ADJOURNMENT AT 9:54 P.M. to a Special Worksession/Meeting on Wednesday, June 14, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, thence to the Regular City Council Meeting on June 20, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. An Adjourned Special Redevelopmerit Agency convened at 9:59 p.m. and adjourned at 10:08 p.m. CLOSED SESSION Council met in Closed Session at 11:22 p.m., reconvened at 11:37 p.m., and ac~journed at 11:38 p.m. 25. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING: 1. Existing litigation pursuant to Gnvernment Code Section 54956.9 · Chula Vista and nine other cities vs. the County of San Diego regarding solid waste issues (trash litigation). 2. Anticipated litigation pursuant to Govermnent Code Section 54956.9 · Metro Sewer Adjustment Billing (water reclamation and expansion costs) and EPA lawsuit. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 · Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee tbr CVEA, WCE, POA, IAFF, Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented. Employee organization: Chola Vista Employees Association (CVEA) and Western Council of Engineers (WCE), Police Officers Association (POA) and [ntemational Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF). Unrepresented employee: Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented. 26. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION - No reportable actions were taken in Closed session. Respecthlly submitted, BEVERLY A. AUTHELET, CMC/AAE, City Clerk \ Vicki C. Soderqeist, Deputy4C, Lty Clerk